Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Blowback: Bin Laden's CIA roots and the US war against [5 items

Skip to first unread message

Janet M Eaton

Sep 13, 2001, 12:28:32 AM9/13/01
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:42:06 -0400
From: Richard Sanders <>
Subject: Blowback: Bin Laden's CIA roots and the US war against

Blowback: Bin Laden, the CIA and US war against Afghanistan

Blowback is the term that the CIA uses to describe a situation when a some
operative, a terrorist or some situation that they've created gets out of
their control and comes back to haunt them. It's a situation where the
scientist (Frankenstein) creates a monster that "blows back" on its creator.

Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are all
pretty good examples of blowback. They were all nurtured for many years by
the CIA, the US military or military intelligence. They all eventually
"blew back."

Below you'll find some background on the CIA war against Afghanistan. More
research is needed on bin Laden's connection to the CIA and it's
counterparts in Pakistan. Does anyone out there have time to spend a few
hours finding the info on bin Laden's CIA connections? It would be very
useful to dig that info up. You'd think people might want to know this
guys connection to US-sponsored terrorist groups.

Here are some basic facts on the context from which bin Laden emerged. All
but one of the following articles are from COAT's issue on the CIA (#43)
<> (January
2001: "A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from
Australia to Zaire")

Pre-1979-1989, Afghanistan: The CIA's Biggest Covert War

By Mark Zapezauer

During the Reagan years, the CIA ran nearly two dozen covert operations
against various governments. Of these, Afghanistan was by far the biggest;
it was, in fact, the biggest CIA operation of all time, both in terms of
dollars spent (US$5 to US$6 billion) and personnel involved.

Its main purpose was to "bleed" the Soviet Union, just as the U.S.
had been bled in Vietnam. Prior to the 1979 Russian invasion, Afghanistan
was ruled by a brutal dictator. Like the neighboring shah of Iran, he
allowed the CIA to set up radar installations in his country that were used
to monitor the Soviets. In 1979, after several dozen Soviet advisors were
massacred by Afghan tribesmen, the USSR sent in the Red Army.

The Soviets tried to install a pliable client regime, without taking
local attitudes into account. Many of the mullahs who controlled chunks of
Afghan territory objected to Soviet efforts to educate women and to
institute land reform. Others, outraged by the USSR's attempts to suppress
the heroin trade, shifted their operations to Pakistan.

As for the CIA, its aim was simply to humiliate the Soviets by arming
anyone who would fight against them. The agency funneled cash and weapons
to over a dozen guerrilla groups, many of whom had been staging raids from
Pakistan years before the Soviet invasion. For many years, long after the
Soviets left Afghanistan, most of these groups were still fighting each
other for control of the country.

One notable veteran of the Afghan operation is Sheik Abdel Rahman,
famous for his role in the World Trade Center bombing.

The CIA succeeded in creating chaos, but never developed a plan for
ending it. When the ten-year war was over, a million people were dead, and
Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market.

Source: Excerpted from CIA's Greatest Hits



Osama bin Laden

By Michael Moran, International Editor, MSNBC.

Since the early 1990s, Osama bin Laden, heir to a Saudi construction
fortune, has financed attacks on interests of U.S. and its Arab allies.

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia
in 1979 to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. By 1984, he was running
Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) that funneled money, arms and fighters into the
Afghan war. MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the CIA's
primary conduit for conducting the covert war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden
and Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian
refugee camps in the Middle East, were partners in the CIA's war.

By 1988, bin Laden split from the relatively conventional MAK and
established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many MAK members.

Source: MSNBC, Aug. 24, 1998.


Stinger missiles

By Christopher Kremmer

Heat-seeking, supersonic shoulder-fired "stinger" missiles and launchers
were doled out generously by the CIA to inflict a humiliating blow on the
Soviet Union.

From 1986 to 1989, the CIA distributed more than a thousand of these
surface-to-air missiles to the Afghan mujihadeen, who used some of them to
bring down 270 Soviet aircraft. The U.S. is still looking for the Stinger
missiles, fearing they may be in the hands of Islamic extremists, like
Osama bin Laden, or hostile foreign governments.

In a covert buy-back scheme, funded by the U.S. Congress, the CIA has
offered up to $US175,000 apiece, five times their original cost, to get the
missiles back. The scheme initially provoked a flood of responses from
Afghan warlords and shady Pakistani middlemen. Hundreds of Stingers are
believed to be still unaccounted for.

Pakistani technicians trained mujihadeen fighters to use the
Stingers, which enjoyed a 79% strike rate.

The lion's share of missiles went to mujihadeen leader, Gulbuddin
Hekmatyar, who became Afghanistan's U.S.-backed Prime Minister. He is now
exiled in Iran.

China, Iran and North Korea are among the countries rumored to
possess Stingers bought from Afghan commanders.

Source: The Age, April 15, 1999.


Mujahedeen: The CIA's Heroin Heroes

CIA-supported mujahedeen engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting
against the Soviet-supported government and its plans to reform the very
backward Afghan society. The CIA's principal client was Gulbuddin
Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a major heroin refiner.
CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan,
were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan
border. They provided up to half of the heroin used annually in the U.S.
and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted
in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug
operation. In 1993, an official of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency called
Afghanistan the new Colombia of the drug world.

Source: William Blum, "A Brief History of CIA Involvement in the Drug
Trade," 1997.


>>From (January 2001: "A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of
Democracy from Australia to Zaire")

The Los Angeles Times May 4, 2000

The Consequences Of Our Actions Abroad:

Americans Feeling the Effects of 'Blowback'

by Chalmers Johnson

Our intelligence agencies--the CIA and its rivals in the Pentagon--have a
history of creating neologisms to describe our world that cover up more than
they reveal. There have been lofty coinages like "host-nation support,"
meaning foreign countries pay to base our troops on their soil, and military
jargon like "low-intensity warfare" that repackages the most brutal strife
in antiseptic language.

Every now and then, however, a useful new word emerges from the labyrinth of
our secret services. The American media recently started to use the term
"blowback." Central Intelligence Agency officials coined it for internal use
in the wake of decisions by the Carter and Reagan administrations to plunge
the agency deep into the civil war in Afghanistan. It wasn't long before the
CIA was secretly arming every moujahedeen volunteer in sight, without
considering who they were or what their politics might be--all in the name
of ensuring that the Soviet Union had its own Vietnam-like experience.

Not so many years later, these "freedom fighters" began to turn up in
unexpected places. They bombed the World Trade Center in New York City,
murdered several CIA employees in Virginia and some American businessmen in
Pakistan and gave support to Osama bin Laden, a prime CIA "asset" back when
our national security advisors had no qualms about giving guns to religious

In this context, "blowback" came to be shorthand for the unintended
consequences of U.S. policies kept secret from the American people. In fact,
to CIA officials and an increasing number of American pundits, blowback has
become a term of art acknowledging that the unconstrained, often illegal,
secret acts of the United States in other countries can result in
retaliation against innocent American citizens. The dirty tricks agencies
are at pains never to draw the connection between what they do and what
sometimes happens to those who pay their salaries.

So we are supposed to believe that the bombings of American embassies in
East Africa in 1998, the proliferation of sophisticated weapons, not to
mention devices of mass murder, around the world, or the crack cocaine
epidemic in American cities are simply examples of terrorism, the work of
unscrupulous arms dealers, drug lords, ancient hatreds, rogue states;
anything unconnected to America's global policies.

Perhaps the term "blowback" can help us to re-link certain violent acts
against Americans to the policies from which they secretly--as far as most
Americans are concerned--sprang. From refugee flows across our southern
borders from countries where U.S.-supported repression has created hopeless
conditions, to U.S.-supported economic policies that have led to
unimaginable misery, blowback reintroduces us to a world of cause and

We also might consider widening the word's application to take in the
unintended consequences U.S. policies may have for others. For example, even
if the policies that our government fostered and that produced the economic
collapse of Indonesia in 1997 never blow back to the U.S., the unintended
consequences for Indonesians have been staggering. They include poverty,
serious ethnic violence and perhaps political disintegration. Similarly, our
"dirty hands" in overthrowing President Salvador Allende in Chile and
installing Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who subsequently killed thousands of his
own citizens, are just now coming fully into the open. Even when blowback
from our policies mainly strikes other peoples, it has a corrosive effect on
us, debasing political discourse and making us feel duped when the news
finally emerges.

The United States likes to think of itself as the winner of the Cold War. In
all probability, to those looking back at blowback a century hence, neither
side will appear to have won, particularly if the United States maintains
its present imperial course.

- - -

Chalmers Johnson Is President of the Japan Policy Research Institute and
Author of "Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire"
(Metropolitan Books, 2000)

This last article was circulated by robert rodvik <>

Richard Sanders
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)

A national peace network supported by
individuals and organizations across Canada

541 McLeod St., Ottawa Ontario K1R 5R2 Canada
Tel.: 613-231-3076 Fax: 613-231-2614
Email: <> Web site: <>

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Help build opposition to NATO PA meetings in Ottawa, Oct. 5-8, 2001!
Join the "no_to_nato" list serve:
Send the message: subscribe no_to_nato to <>
Read the archives of our list serve <>
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see

0 new messages